Should income tax be abolished?

[KonstantinosM]

I believe that income tax should be abolished.

I live in the US, and I don't think income tax is fair.


One of the reasons is that the median person will have to pay income tax and then a sales tax on food. Also you have to pay income tax and then property tax on your house.

Another reason is that from when income tax was established the tax brackets seem to have moved downwards. That is to say that poorer people have been getting progressively taxed more. It may help to start taxing people above a living wage of $35,000 but I know that's not going to happen.

(For reason number 2, I believe that the brackets have primarily moved down due to the hidden tax of inflation, which means that you get triply taxed the longer you hold your money)

What do you think?

[mdayonliner]

What do you think?

I think if someones annual income is under or equal to $35K a year then double the tax if the income goes over $35K then reduce it to half. We can adjust the $35K with any other reasonable number.

My point is, give incentives to tweak peoples mind. Most of the people are poor, they don't work to earn more because they think it's good for them - they do not have to pay more tax. If we can tweak their mind and put this idea in-front of them that for up to x amount of annual income your tax is 20% and if you go above then your tax is 10% - you will see people will start working hard to cross the barrier of x to pay less tax.

[KonstantinosM]

What do you think?

I think if someones annual income is under or equal to $35K a year then double the tax if the income goes over $35K then reduce it to half. We can adjust the $35K with any other reasonable number.

My point is, give incentives to tweak peoples mind. Most of the people are poor, they don't work to earn more because they think it's good for them - they do not have to pay more tax. If we can tweak their mind and put this idea in-front of them that for up to x amount of annual income your tax is 20% and if you go above then your tax is 10% - you will see people will start working hard to cross the barrier of x to pay less tax.

This is an argument I didn't expect. It makes total sense in a world where all of our basic needs are met (through UBI or other means) but I don't think it makes sense in our world.

With the current financial system this would just siphon money from the working poor to the wealthy.

[suchmoon]

I believe that income tax should be abolished.

I live in the US, and I don't think income tax is fair.


One of the reasons is that the median person will have to pay income tax and then a sales tax on food. Also you have to pay income tax and then property tax on your house.

Another reason is that from when income tax was established the tax brackets seem to have moved downwards. That is to say that poorer people have been getting progressively taxed more. It may help to start taxing people above a living wage of $35,000 but I know that's not going to happen.

(For reason number 2, I believe that the brackets have primarily moved down due to the hidden tax of inflation, which means that you get triply taxed the longer you hold your money)

What do you think?

And who's gonna fund all those wars then?

You can move to a state that doesn't have sales tax on food. Perhaps there is also one that that doesn't have sales tax on food AND doesn't have property tax, not sure about that.

If you want to abolish the income tax then start generating ideas on how to reform the SPENDING side. We've already got a massive budget hole from the last cut, so figure out how to patch that one, reduce spending further by another $2 trillion, then let's talk about abolishing the income tax.

[jeffthebaker]

Do you use public roads? Get your garbage disposed of? Call 911 in emergency? Go to the library? Send an receive mail?

It's not as if tax money goes into a black hole. Taxes are in place for a reason. If you don't want to pay taxes work remotely and move to a small island in the carribean

[Carlton Banks]

Do you use public roads? Get your garbage disposed of? Call 911 in emergency? Go to the library? Send an receive mail?

It's not as if tax money goes into a black hole. Taxes are in place for a reason.

No, that's wrong.

The money paid in taxes doesn't even cover the interest that governments accrue on their national debts. Literally none of the money you pay in taxes pays for a single fragment of gravel in any government road.

[jeffthebaker]

Do you use public roads? Get your garbage disposed of? Call 911 in emergency? Go to the library? Send an receive mail?

It's not as if tax money goes into a black hole. Taxes are in place for a reason.

No, that's wrong.

The money paid in taxes doesn't even cover the interest that governments accrue on the national debt. Literally none of the money you pay in taxes pays for a single fragment of gravel in any government road.

We can get into a long debate over the wonderful intracacies of the US finances, but that's not the time or the place... But to say <none> of your taxes goes towards any public good is asinine.

Quick Google breaks down rough estimates of where tax dollars go: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18098378/ns/business-answer_desk/t/where-do-my-income-tax-dollars-go/

About 12% of taxes go towards debt payments.

Of course. There's also city, county, state taxes that fund various ventures. It's okay to hate the government or disagree with taxation policies, but it's hypocritical to talk about how useless taxation is while benefiting from all the public goods funded by it.

[Carlton Banks]

About 12% of taxes go towards debt payments.

Think about the mathematics. The debt always increases, every year. There's nothing magic about government debt, if the debt increases every year, that means it's not getting paid back. It's very simple.

What the US (and every other) government does is borrow all money to pay for public services. That's how they do it. Think: the only other way that this equation works is if we say that taxes pay for (say) 88% of public services, and the government than borrows money to pay it's remaining debts. Sure, saying 12% goes to debt repayments would be true if you expressed it that way, but it masks the fact that 12% of tax revenues do not cover all the bond repayments that are due in a given year. Hence why national debts always increase.

It's not about emotions, it's about math. And there is no long debate, it's very very simple

[Foxpup]

Do you use public roads? Get your garbage disposed of? Call 911 in emergency? Go to the library? Send an receive mail?

Most of those are paid for by municipal governments, not the federal government. Municipal services are funded almost entirely by property taxes, which is generally regarded as a fairer system than income tax.

[suchmoon]

Do you use public roads? Get your garbage disposed of? Call 911 in emergency? Go to the library? Send an receive mail?

Most of those are paid for by municipal governments, not the federal government. Municipal services are funded almost entirely by property taxes, which is generally regarded as a fairer system than income tax.

Depends - some places have fairly high local income and sales taxes and in some places property tax goes entirely to schools.

I wouldn't say property tax is more fair. I made the money, purchased property, and now I have to pay a tax on it forever regardless of what I earn or can afford. Instead of getting taxed once on earnings (income tax) or on spending (sales tax) - both of these seem more fair to me than property tax, which feels like the government constantly dipping into my pocket.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Do you use public roads? Get your garbage disposed of? Call 911 in emergency? Go to the library? Send an receive mail?

Most of those are paid for by municipal governments, not the federal government. Municipal services are funded almost entirely by property taxes, which is generally regarded as a fairer system than income tax.

Depends - some places have fairly high local income and sales taxes and in some places property tax goes entirely to schools.

I wouldn't say property tax is more fair. I made the money, purchased property, and now I have to pay a tax on it forever regardless of what I earn or can afford. Instead of getting taxed once on earnings (income tax) or on spending (sales tax) - both of these seem more fair to me than property tax, which feels like the government constantly dipping into my pocket.

On the other hand, most economist are in favour of a land value tax, as it is a tax with minimal distortions and flagfall on the economy and tend to be more equitable and fair. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

[Quickseller]

The US national debt increases every year because the US government continues to spend more than it brings in via taxes every year.

Roads are primarily financed by state governments, however the Federal DOT does give grants to states.

The overwhelming majority of US Federal Tax dollars go to transfer payments (welfare), although some of these tax dollars are specifically designated for transfer programs that the payor will, in theory will eventually get back (such as social security). It probably would be best to eliminate or significantly reduce most transfer programs because they create disincentives for individuals to generate income and wealth.

The primary thing that government provides that individuals absolutely cannot purchase themselves if there were no income taxes is a national defense, and as such, there must be some amount of taxes that collectively pays for national defense and security.

[suchmoon]

On the other hand, most economist are in favour of a land value tax, as it is a tax with minimal distortions and flagfall on the economy and tend to be more equitable and fair. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

Except it's impossible to actually implement fairly, particularly fair assessment is a bitch. Perhaps a bit easier than property tax but still prone to manipulation and corruption. Land or property is worth only as much as someone is willing to pay for it but even if it hasn't been sold in the last 20 years the government will still want to come up with some harebrained scheme to get the "current" value.

[worldofcoins]

The US national debt increases every year because the US government continues to spend more than it brings in via taxes every year.

Roads are primarily financed by state governments, however the Federal DOT does give grants to states.

The overwhelming majority of US Federal Tax dollars go to transfer payments (welfare), although some of these tax dollars are specifically designated for transfer programs that the payor will, in theory will eventually get back (such as social security). It probably would be best to eliminate or significantly reduce most transfer programs because they create disincentives for individuals to generate income and wealth.

The primary thing that government provides that individuals absolutely cannot purchase themselves if there were no income taxes is a national defense, and as such, there must be some amount of taxes that collectively pays for national defense and security.

It is not sustainable to abolish tax, as these money go into maintenance of the roads, state schools etc and without taxpayer's money the government won't be able to provide these basics.

[Carlton Banks]

It is not sustainable to abolish tax, as these money go into maintenance of the roads, state schools etc and without taxpayer's money the government won't be able to provide these basics.

It's not sustainable to carry on with a system that guarantees more unpayable debt

Roads, schools and other infrastucture can be paid for cheaper and using better construction when the deals made to implement them aren't corrupt. It's called capitalism.

[guybrushthreepwood]

You could move to a country that doesn't have taxes if you're so against paying them. Usually, though, these countries don't have a high standard of living or come with other such negatives. I guess this is the price you pay for living in such a country.

Aren't there even US states that don't have income taxes?

https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/state-with-no-income-tax-better-or-worse-1.aspx

Seven U.S. states currently don't have an income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. And residents of New Hampshire and Tennessee are also spared from handing over an extra chunk of their paycheck on April 15, though they do pay tax on dividends and income from investments.

You can argue all day about what taxes people should or shouldn't be paying, but usually places where you pay little to none aren't very nice places to live. I think some medium should be found. I don't think 'rich' people should have half of their money taken nor do I think very poor people should have to pay much if anything at all. I don't think taxes should be wasted on pointless wars either, but that's corruption and corporatism for you. I think a society where every one chips in what they can afford is a much better place as opposed to one where everyone fends for themselves and people get left by the wayside in the process. Taxes should be spent on improving society and services everyone uses and then everyone benefits.

[Carlton Banks]

I think a society where every one chips in what they can afford is a much better place as opposed to one where everyone fends for themselves and people get left by the wayside in the process. Taxes should be spent on improving society and services everyone uses and then everyone benefits.

why wouldn't it work if people just paid for what the use? Everyone would have more money than under taxation schemes, any improvement schemes that needed a lot of funding would still happen if the incentive to do it was good enough (especially in the internet age, Kickstarter etc proves that people will fund something they think will be good for them and others)

And why should everyone do it the way you think is good?

[suchmoon]

Aren't there even US states that don't have income taxes?

There are states without state income tax. You'd still have to pay the federal income tax.

[Strufmbae]

unfair or fair atleast you can proudly say that the income/wage you are receiving to your employer is far more different from a third world country, the bigger the income the country is rich. you'll have nuclear weapons, submarines, jet planes, warships, and the more you complain about income tax, the country you belongs to, gets respected by other countries knowing that you have crazy weapons that could make a place vanish that's all i know. lol.

[KonstantinosM]

unfair or fair atleast you can proudly say that the income/wage you are receiving to your employer is far more different from a third world country, the bigger the income the country is rich. you'll have nuclear weapons, submarines, jet planes, warships, and the more you complain about income tax, the country you belongs to, gets respected by other countries knowing that you have crazy weapons that could make a place vanish that's all i know. lol.

A man in Africa using only a couple of dollars a week, but who owns his own farm, produces a surplus of food, and doesn't really need to even go to the market is much richer then a McDonalds worker, who is constantly on call for his job, uses $300 dollars a week, and has trouble keeping his head above water (financially)



To the untrained eye, the McDonalds worker out-earns the "third world" man 150 to 1 . But the third world man can work less hours, owns the products of his labor and can do as he pleases.